1. THE UNIVERSITY OF LAHORE, CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FINAL YEAR PROJECT PRESENTATION
EFFECT OF FIBER ON GEOPOLYMER CONCERTE
2. PRESENTED BY:
MUHAMMAD BURHAN (BSCE01173008)
SAIM RASHID (BSCE01173035)
SAMAR HAMZA BUTT (BSCE01173143)
BILAL BUTT (BSCE01173020)
PRESENTED TO:
Final year project committee.
Civil Engineering Department.
The University of Lahore, Lahore.
Engr. Asad Iqbal.
Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department.
The University of Lahore, Lahore.
PROJECT ADVISOR:
Muhammad Awais Basharat.
Sub Divisional Officer (SDO).
C & W, Punjab, Pakistan .
EXTERNAL EXAMINER:
Engr. Hassan Ashfaq.
Lab Engineer.
Department of Civil Engineering.
CO-SUPERVISOR:
4. 1. INTRODUCTION
▪ Geoplymer is innovative, eco-friendly and economical construction
material
▪ It is used as replacement of comment concert
▪ Fly ash along with alkali activator solution is used as binder
▪ Fly ash is waste material its proper used helps in cleaning the environment
▪ Polypropylene fibers or steel fiber used as reinforce material.
▪ Widely used now a days in advance countries
▪ Produce more durable infrastructure
▪ Utilize waste material from industries like fly ash.
▪ Combines waste product into useful products
5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
• Ordinary Portland cement OPC produce large of amount carbon dioxide
(CO2) gases.
• 1 ton of CO2 is produce for every 1 ton of cement
• High energy demand
• The adverse environmental impacts of manufacturing of cement as well
high energy requirement for production demands an ecofriendly material for
sustainable concrete commonly named as geopolymer concrete.
• GPC conserve hundred of thousand of arc land currently used for disposal of
coal combustion
6. OBJECTIVE
▪ To develop a mix design of fly ash-based GPC mix with target compressive
strength of 21 MPa (3000 psi) cured at ambient temperature curing.
▪ To investigate the fresh properties (i.e., slump, wet density) and hardened properties
(i.e., dry density, compressive strength and flexural strength) of fly ash-based GPC
mixes.
▪ To investigate the effect of alkaline activators (NaOH and Na2SiO3) on the axial
and flexural behavior of ambient cured GPC mixes.
▪ To develop empirical relationships between compressive and flexural strengths and
alkaline activator solutions based on regression analysis.
▪ To develop a mix design of fly ash-based GPC mix with Polypropylene fibers
reinforce having target compressive strength of 26 Mpa.
7. PROBLEM STATEMENT
▪ Concrete is the second most commonly used material throughout
the world
▪ Environmentally friendly concrete for future construction is
necessary.
▪ The global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse
gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) gases which is produce by the
production of cement into the atmosphere.
▪ Reduce waste material
▪ Save nature by reducing global warning.
8. 2.LITERATURE REVIEW
ENVIRONMENT EFFECT.
▪ The climate change due to global warming has become a major problem for a friendly environment. The carbon
dioxide (CO2) gases emissions are the main cause of global warming and CO2 gases are produced by different
human activities (Marjanović et al., 2016).
▪ The manufacturing of one kg of cement emits about 0.81 kg of CO2 gases and is a major cause of global warming
(Huntzinger and Eatmon, 2009).
▪ he production of cement is increased about 3% annually which causes emission of greenhouse gases i.e. carbon
dioxide (CO2) gas and sulphur trioxide (SO3) gas (Rashad, 2014).
▪ The main problem associated with the production of OPC is CO2 gases (Du et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2016).
▪ The use of energy conservative technologies is the way forward to make the environment ecofriendly (Du et al.,
2017).
▪ The harmful impacts of global warming on humans have moved the scientific communities in the world towards
ecofriendly green construction binder to reduce the production of CO2 (Rashad, 2013).
▪ The usage of geopolymer binders reduced the CO2 emission by 41% and reduced energy consumption by 47 % in
comparison to OPC (Wu et al., 2018).
9. GEOPOLYMERS
The geopolymer concrete (GPC) mix was first successfully developed by Davidovits in 1979 to optimize
the use of cement in concrete (Davidovits, 1999; Davidovits, 2005; Davidovits, 2013).
The primary difference between ordinary Portland cement (OPC) concrete and GPC is of the binder (Junaid
et al., 2014).
The binder used in that study was named as geopolymer because the chemical reaction produced three-
dimensional polymeric chain structures consisting of Si-O-Al (Davidovits, 2013).
The constituents of GPC mix are supplementary cementitious material (binder), coarse aggregates, fine
aggregates, and alkaline activators (NaOH and Na2SiO3) (Davidovits, 1999)
In OPC concrete, the binder is cement but in GPC the binder is supplementary cementitious material
having large concentrations of alumina and silica particles (Junaid et al., 2014).
The reaction of supplementary cementitious material with alkaline activator form pastes which binds the
constituents to form GPC mix (Davidovits, 2013).
Huseien et al. (2017) reported that geopolymer binders were more durable due to low energy
requirement compared to OPC concrete.
10. FLY ASH
▪ Fly ash is one of the most commonly used binder in GPC mix throughout the world. Fly ash is
produced as a byproduct during combustion of coal and collected in precipitator mechanically.
▪ The fly ash is classified in two types named as class F and class C as per ASTM C618-13 (ASTM, 2013).
▪ Fly ash reacts with an alkaline activator to form an inorganic aluminosilicate polymer product yielding
polymeric Si–O–Al–O bonds known as Geopolymers (Daniel et al., 2017).
▪ The low calcium fly ash (class F) is most commonly used compared to high calcium fly ash (class C)
because higher amounts of calcium contents create hindrance in the geopolymerization phenomena
(Noushini and Castel, 2016).
▪ The presence of calcium during geopolymerization produced additional calcium silicate hydrate gel
and calcium aluminosilicate hydrate bond which improves the compressive strength of GPC mix. Guo
et al. (2010)
▪ Chindaprasirt et al. (2011) investigated the effect of particles of fly ash on the mechanical properties
of geopolymer mortar. The setting time was decreased with the increase in fineness of fly ash.
▪ The microstructure of fly ash based GPC mix includes aluminosilicate gel, unreacted fly ash particles
and other crystalline formations (Soman et al., 2011).
11. ALKALINE ACTIVATORS
The alkaline activators play a key role in geopolymerization phenomena because the dissolution of silicon
and aluminum particles from fly ash were totally dependent on the type and concentration of alkaline
activator (Görhan and Kürklü, 2014)
The type of alkaline activators has a significant effect on geopolymerization phenomena and compressive
strength of GPC mix (Pavithra et al., 2016).
Assi et al. (2016) investigated that type of alkaline activators and curing temperatures were the two
important parameters that effects the compressive strength of GPC mix
The commonly used alkaline activators in the geopolymerization process are sodium hydroxide (NaOH),
potassium hydroxide (KOH) and sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) (Davidovits, 2013).
12. CURING TEMPERATURE
Somna et al. (2011) investigated the effect of ambient temperature curing on fly ash-based GPC mixes.
The compressive strength of GPC mixes was increased with increase in curing temperature. The optimum
compressive strength of 20-23 MPa was achieved at ambient temperatures of 18 °C - 23 °C
The curing temperature played an important role in geopolymerization phenomena and partial replacement of
cement can improve the compressive strength of GPC mix at ambient temperatures of 18 °C - 23 °C (Assi et al.,
2016)
The flexural strength of geopolymer mortar was increased with increase in curing temperature from 27 °C to 60 °C
.The optimum flexural strength of 7.0 MPa was achieved at curing temperature of 60 °C (Huseien et al., 2016).
Somna et al. (2011) noted that initial curing temperatures for high strength GPC mixes should lie within range of 40
°C - 95 °C.
The heat cured GPC mix exhibited higher compressive strength, low drying shrinkage and better durability (Sarker,
2013; Temuujin et al., 2011).
Al-Majidi et al. (2016) investigated that the heat curing of GPC mix can be avoided by partial replacement of fly ash
with ground granulated blast furnace slag.
The addition of granulated blast furnace slag resulted in increase in the flexural strength of GPC mix at room
temperature (Al-Majidi et al., 2016).
The preparation of fly ash based GPC mix cured at ambient temperatures is a main challenge for the wide spread
applications of GPC mix in the construction field (Singh et al., 2015; Singhal et al., 2018).
13. 3. RESEARCH METHODLOGY
Obtaining
of
material
Initial testing of material
Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate
Sand
density
(ASTM C-
29)
Specific
gravity
(ASTM C-
128)
Aggregate
crushing
(BS-812)
Aggregate
impact
(BS-812)
Specific
gravity
(ASTM C-
127)
Bulk
density
(ASTM C-
29)
Fineness
modulus
(ASTM C-
136)
18. 4. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
SIEVE ANALYSIS FOR COARSE AGGREGATE:
Sieve size Mass Retained (grams) % Retained Cumulative % Retained Cumulative % Passing
ASTM C 133 Grading
Min Max
25mm (1.0 in) 0 0 0 100 100 100
19mm (3/4 in) 0 0.00 0.00 100.00 90 100
12.5mm (1/2) 896 17.92 17.92 82.08 55 90
9.5mm (3/8in) 3180 63.60 81.52 18.48 20 55
4.75mm (#4) 710 14.20 95.72 4.28 0 10
2.36mm (#8) 196 3.92 99.64 0.36 0 0
1.18mm (#16) 0 0.00 99.64 0.36 0 0
0.6mm (#30) 0 0.00 99.64 0.36 0 0
0.3mm (#50) 0 0.00 99.64 0.36 0 0
0.15mm (#100) 0 0.00 99.64 0.36 0 0
Σ = 4982 693.36
Sieve analysis determines the particle size distribution of a given soil sample and hence
helps in easy identification of a soil's mechanical properties. These mechanical properties
determine whether a given soil can support the proposed engineering structure. For coarse
aggregate table is given below
19. BULK DENSITY OF COARSE AGGREGATE.
Sample
State
Weight of
Container
Volume of
Container
Weight of Agg
+ Weight of
Container
Weight of
Aggregate
Bulk
Density
Kg m3 Kg Kg Kg/ m3
Loose 8.655 0.0053014 16.58 7.925 1494.88
compacted 8.655 0.0053014 17.2 8.545 1611.83
Source of
Aggregate
Total Weight
of Aggregate
Taken
Weight of
Aggregate
Passing
2.36mm sieve
Weight of
Aggregate
Retained on
2.36mm sieve
Aggregate
Crushing Value
A (Kg) B (Kg) C (Kg) B/A x 100
Marghalla
Crush
0.54 0.083 0.457 15.4
0.51 0.079 0.431 15.5
0.53 0.081 0.449 15.3
AGGREGATE IMPACT VALUE TEST COARSE AGGREGATE
20. AGGREGATE CRUSHING VALUE TEST FOR COARSE AGGREGATE
Source of
Aggreagte
Total Weight
of Aggregate
Taken
Weight of
Aggregate
Passing
2.36mm sieve
Weight of
Aggregate
Retained on
2.36mm sieve
Aggregate
Crushing Value
M1 (Kg) M3 (Kg) M2 (Kg) M3/M1 x 100
Marghalla
Crush
3.755 0.54 3.215 14.4
3.9 0.558 3.342 14.3
3.69 0.54 3.15 14.6
22. Sample
State
Weight of
Container
Volume of
Container
Weight of
Agg + Weight
of Container
Weight of
Aggregate
Bulk
Density
Kg m3 Kg Kg Kg/ m3
Loose 0.85 0.0010296 2.33 1.48 1437.41
compacted 0.85 0.0010296 2.51 1.66 1612.23
SAND DENSITY TEST
WATER ABSORPTION AND SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST ON FINE AGGREGATES
Calculation of Specific Gravity and water absorption for Fine Aggregate:
Weight of Saturated surface dry Sample in Air (grams) = SSD =
500
Weight of Oven Dry Sample in Air (grams) = A =
494
Weight of (Pycnometer + water) in (grams) = B =
980
Weight of (Pycnometer + Sample + water) in (grams) = C =
1295
Specific Gravity (Oven Dry) = A/ (SSD+B-C) =
2.67
Specific Gravity (SSD) = SSD/ (SSD+B-C) =
2.70
Apparent Specific Gravity = A/(A+B-C) =
2.76
Water Absorption (%) = (SSD-A) *100/A =
1.21
23. SLUMPAND DENSITY RESULTS OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE
Mix.
No.
Mix ID Slump Mass
Day 1
Mass
Day 28
Wet
Density
Dry
Density
mm kg kg kg/m3 kg/m3
1 GPC-14-1.5-0.5 13 3.91 3.82 2440 2385
2 GPC-14-2.0-0.5 15 4.01 3.96 2458 2422
3 GPC-14-2.5-0.5 15 4.01 3.95 2494 2462
4 GPC-16-1.5-0.5 10 4.02 3.93 2456 2404
5 GPC-16-2.0-0.5 13 4.00 3.92 2486 2436
6 GPC-16-2.5-0.5 15 4.03 3.96 2468 2422
27. MOLARITY AND WET-DENSITY/DRY-DENSITY
2458
2486
2440
2450
2460
2470
2480
2490
14 16
Wet
density(Kg/m˄3)
Molarity of NaOH when Ratio = 2
Molarity of NaOH and wet density
2494
2468
2450
2460
2470
2480
2490
2500
14 16
Wet
density(Kg/m˄3)
Molarity of NaOH when Ratio = 2.5
Molarity of NaOH and wet density
2430
2435
2440
2445
2450
2455
2460
14 16
Wet
density(Kg/m˄3)
Molarity of NaOH when Ratio = 1.5
Molarity of NaOH and wet density
2385
2404
2375
2380
2385
2390
2395
2400
2405
2410
14 16
DRY
DENSITY(KG/M˄3)
MOLARITY OF NaOH WHEN RATIO = 1.5
Molarity of NaOH and dry density
2462
2422
2400
2410
2420
2430
2440
2450
2460
2470
14 16
DRY
DENSITY(KG/M˄3
MOLARITY OF NaOH WHEN RATIO = 2.5
Molarity of NaOH and dry density
2422
2436
2415
2420
2425
2430
2435
2440
14 16
DRY
DENSITY(KG/M˄3
MOLARITY OF NaOH WHEN RATIO = 2.0
Molarity of NaOH and dry density
28. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF GPC MIXES BASED ON NaOH
19
22
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
14 16
Compressive
strength
(MPa)
Molarity of NaOH when Ratio =1.5
Molarity of NaOH and compressive strength
21
18
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
14 16
Compressive
strength
(MPa)
Molarity of NaOH when Ratio =2
Molarity of NaOH and compressive
strength
17
16
15.4
15.6
15.8
16
16.2
16.4
16.6
16.8
17
17.2
14 16
Compressive
strength
(MPa)
Molarity of NaOH when Ratio =2.5
Molarity of NaOH and compressive
strength
29. FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF GPC MIXES BASED ON NA2SIO3/NaOH RATIO
4.3
5
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
5.2
14M 16M
Flexural
strength(MPa
Molarity of NaOH when R=1.5
Molarity of NaOH and flexural
strength
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
14M 16M
Flexural
strength(MPa)
Molarity of NaOH when R=2.0
Molarity of NaOH and flexural strength
4.6
4.65
4.7
4.75
4.8
4.85
4.9
4.95
14M 16M
Flexural
strength(MPa)
Molarity of NaOH when R=2.5
Molarity of NaOH and flexural strength
30. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF GPC MIXES WITH & WITHOUT FIBER
24
22
21
21.5
22
22.5
23
23.5
24
24.5
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(MPA)
MOLARITY OF NAOH 16M WITH 0.1% FIBER
Comparison of Fiber and without Fiber GPC
With Fiber
Without fiber
27
22
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(MPA)
MOLARITY OF NAOH 16M WITH 0.2% FIBER
Comparison of Fiber and without Fiber GPC
With Fiber
Without fiber
22 22
0
5
10
15
20
25
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
(MPA)
MOLARITY OF NAOH 16M WITH 0.3% FIBER
Comparison of Fiber and without Fiber GPC
With Fiber
Without fiber
31. 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS:
The slump test results showed that with the increase in AA/FA ratios the workability of GPC mixes
were increased. The average slump value at AA/FA ratios of 0.5 was 13.5 mm.
The compressive strengths of GPC mixes were increased by about 15.78% with increase in NaOH
concentrations from 14 M to 16 M. The optimum compressive strength of 22 MPa was achieved at 16
M NaOH concentration.
▪ The compressive strengths of GPC mixes were marginally decreased with increase in Na2SiO3/NaOH
ratios. The optimum compressive strength was achieved at Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio of 1.5. The
compressive strengths of GPC mixes were decreased by about 18.18% and 11.11% each as the
Na2SiO3/NaOH ratios were increased from 1.5 to 2.0 and 2.0 to 2.5, for 16 M respectively
The flexural strengths of GPC mixes were increased by about 17.89% with increase in molarity of
NaOH concentrations from 14 M to 16 M. The optimum flexure strength of 5.0 MPa was achieved at
16 M NaOH concentration.
The flexural strengths of GPC mixes were decreased with increase in Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio. The
optimum flexural strength was achieved at Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio of 1.5. The average flexural strengths
of GPC mixes were decreased by about 0% and 0.02% as the ratios of Na2SiO3/NaOH were increased
from 1.5 to 2.0 and 2.0 to 2.5, for 16 M respectively.
32. Compressive strength of GPC mixes increases with the increase in fiber content till optimum range, by
adding 0.1% fiber content there is 9.1% increase in compressive strength. By adding 0.2% of fiber
content there is 22.7% increase in compressive strength. After 0.2% fiber content, further increase in
fiber content i.e. 0.3% there is reduction of compressive strength.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The recommendations for the future studies are as follows:
1. Comparison of ambient cured and heat cured GPC mixes.
2. Determination of various parameters that effect the durability of GPC mixes.
3. Comparison of axial and flexural strengths of ambient cured GPC mixes by utilizing different
industrial waste supplementary materials.
4. comparison of polypropylene fiber reinforced with steel fibers.
33. Queensland’s University GCI building with 3 suspended floors made from structural geopolymer
concrete. Credit: Hassel Architect
World’s first public building with structural Geopolymer Concrete
USES:
34. REFERENCES:
▪ Karthik R and Chandrasekaran P. (2014), “Study on Properties of High Strength Silica Fume Concrete with
polypropyleneFibre”, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, Vol. 3,
Special Issue 2, pp.85-90.
▪ Tamil Selvi M., Thandavamoorhty, T.S. (2015), “Mechanical and Durability Properties of Steel and Polypropylene
Fibre Reinforced Concrete”, International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, pp.696-703.
▪ Assi, L., Ghahari, S., Deaver, E. E., Leaphart, D., and Ziehl, P. (2016). Improvement of the early and final
compressive strength of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete at ambient conditions. Construction and Building
Materials, 123, pp. 806-813.
▪ ASTM C114-07. (2007). StandaChindaprasirt, P., Jaturapitakkul, C., Chalee, W., and Rattanasak, U. (2009).
Comparative study on the characteristics of fly ash and bottom ash geopolymers. Waste management, 29(2), pp.
539-543.
▪ Daniel, A. J., Sivakamasundari, S., and Abhilash, D. (2017). Comparative study on the behavior of geopolymer
concrete with hybrid fibers under static cyclic loading. Procedia rd Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Hydraulic Cement. In American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box
▪ Contact (burhan1998.mb@gmail.com)
